Is it logical to attempt a comparison based on two so divergent scenarios?

What divergent scenarios? we were trying to get the same thing done in two different countries.

Two entirely different scenarios. In the one case, you were immigrating, and immigration is a federally documented process. In the other case, you were trying to get your wife covered by your insurance, and marriage is not a well-documented process at all.

Furthermore, this quibbling over relative degrees of minor inconvenience is trivial in the context of the question of whether it's a good thing to have a government in charge of your health care._________________Deja Moo: the feeling that you've heard this bull before

Two entirely different scenarios. In the one case, you were immigrating, and immigration is a federally documented process. In the other case, you were trying to get your wife covered by your insurance, and marriage is not a well-documented process at all.

I don't know what you mean. how is marriage not well documented? I was married in Massachusetts and that's where our certificate is from.

Quote:

Furthermore, this quibbling over relative degrees of minor inconvenience is trivial in the context of the question of whether it's a good thing to have a government in charge of your health care.

I agree, which is why I said that a good health system isn't necessarily one that has such a convenience. Fair point.

HOWEVER, one common criticism leveled at single payer models is that they are plagued with inefficiencies and impenetrable bureaucracies. My anecdotal evidence (though I think it is well documented) says otherwise._________________

wswartzendruber wrote:

Well, every group has its nutjobs, and the Second Amendment crowd is no exception.

Stewart has an axe to grind with obama. That pinko is after obama because he was go single payer. These glitches are all Stewart spewing propaganda.

No. While Stewart occasionally is critical, when the Obama Administration has done something absolutely unediable and humiliating for Democrats, he generally gives Obama's knob a nightly spit-polishing and spends virtually all of his time hammering on Republicans. He's not as bad as his protege, Colbert, but he's pandering to his naive, 20-35 yr old audience and is just part of the echo chamber (a humorous part, but an influential part)._________________Deja Moo: the feeling that you've heard this bull before

Stewart has an axe to grind with obama. That pinko is after obama because he was go single payer. These glitches are all Stewart spewing propaganda.

No. While Stewart occasionally is critical, when the Obama Administration has done something absolutely unediable and humiliating for Democrats, he generally gives Obama's knob a nightly spit-polishing and spends virtually all of his time hammering on Republicans. He's not as bad as his protege, Colbert, but he's pandering to his naive, 20-35 yr old audience and is just part of the echo chamber (a humorous part, but an influential part).

++

That is absolutely undeniable. Stewart is still a mouth piece for the democrat party. He treats democrat talking points as facts instead of the bullshit spin that they are.

The first host of the Daily Show was much funnier, because he mocked everything and wasn't swallowing democrat party jizz._________________I, for one, am glad to be living on a planet with 776x the mass of the super-massive black hole at the center of the milky way just to keep Neptune in its daily orbit around the Earth.
auf alten Schiffen lernt man Segeln.

Stewart has an axe to grind with obama. That pinko is after obama because he was go single payer. These glitches are all Stewart spewing propaganda.

No. While Stewart occasionally is critical, when the Obama Administration has done something absolutely unediable and humiliating for Democrats, he generally gives Obama's knob a nightly spit-polishing and spends virtually all of his time hammering on Republicans. He's not as bad as his protege, Colbert, but he's pandering to his naive, 20-35 yr old audience and is just part of the echo chamber (a humorous part, but an influential part).

++

That is absolutely undeniable. Stewart is still a mouth piece for the democrat party. He treats democrat talking points as facts instead of the bullshit spin that they are.

The first host of the Daily Show was much funnier, because he mocked everything and wasn't swallowing democrat party jizz.

stewart is left of the democrats in most respects. so his patients is understandably shorter for the republicans. he more than occasionally talks shit about obama. I only see stewart occassionally nowadays, but he is always after him. not like he was after bush, but he has been against the wars, the war propaganda etc etc._________________

wswartzendruber wrote:

Well, every group has its nutjobs, and the Second Amendment crowd is no exception.

The text in no way suggests he is left of Democrats. If anything, it could lead to a reasonable interpretation that he is right of most democrats._________________lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

Stewart has an axe to grind with obama. That pinko is after obama because he was go single payer. These glitches are all Stewart spewing propaganda.

No. While Stewart occasionally is critical, when the Obama Administration has done something absolutely unediable and humiliating for Democrats, he generally gives Obama's knob a nightly spit-polishing and spends virtually all of his time hammering on Republicans. He's not as bad as his protege, Colbert, but he's pandering to his naive, 20-35 yr old audience and is just part of the echo chamber (a humorous part, but an influential part).

Relating to my comment on you above, on the flip side, the long term merits of obamacare shouldn't be judged by these short term fuck ups._________________

wswartzendruber wrote:

Well, every group has its nutjobs, and the Second Amendment crowd is no exception.

The long term merits can't be judged, except in a future hindsight.
Numerous articles explain how Obamacare has convinced insurers to offer worse policies that peole now are compelled to buy. People are losing their coverage due to PP/ACA, and have weaker, more expensive alternatives they are compelled to buy. This isn't rocket science.

Relating to my comment on you above, on the flip side, the long term merits of obamacare shouldn't be judged by these short term fuck ups.

Why shouldn't it? Doesn't the fact that the government apparently can't run a website make you question whether they should be running the health care system?

No, it doesn't. The government runs a number of websites well. So, the government has not shown that it "can't run a website". The fact that they fucked this up royally doesn't mean that they can't run a health care system. Conversely (essentially BK's criticism of my anecdotal story), simply running that website well doesn't mean you can run a health care system well.

They aren't connected. My local gym has it's times on its website rather messed up and has a confusing online payment system, but it's a good gym.

That being said, they were plain idiotic about this. Just the PR disaster the republicans love._________________

wswartzendruber wrote:

Well, every group has its nutjobs, and the Second Amendment crowd is no exception.

Last edited by juniper on Mon Oct 28, 2013 4:05 pm; edited 4 times in total

The long term merits can't be judged, except in a future hindsight.
Numerous articles explain how Obamacare has convinced insurers to offer worse policies that peole now are compelled to buy. People are losing their coverage due to PP/ACA, and have weaker, more expensive alternatives they are compelled to buy. This isn't rocket science.

do post one. I am curious._________________

wswartzendruber wrote:

Well, every group has its nutjobs, and the Second Amendment crowd is no exception.

"You guys"? My health insurance provider has their shit together. "We" aren't the problem. The problem is the government; the only thing they do *well* is kill brown people, and they sure as fuck don't do that efficiently.

Healthcare doesn't have a one size fits all solution. I've been saying that for years. The US government is not the solution to the problem of healthcare in the US; they're too fucking inefficient at everything. I've also been saying that for years._________________My political bias.

Relating to my comment on you above, on the flip side, the long term merits of obamacare shouldn't be judged by these short term fuck ups.

Why shouldn't it? Doesn't the fact that the government apparently can't run a website make you question whether they should be running the health care system?

No, it doesn't. The government runs a number of websites well. So, the government has not shown that it "can't run a website". The fact that they fucked this up royally doesn't mean that they can't run a health care system.

Fine, I'll reword slightly: Doesn't the fact that the government sometimes can't run a website make you question whether they should be running the health care system?

I really don't see how the government sometimes managing to run websites without falling on their face mitigates the argument even in the slightest.

Quote:

They aren't connected. My local gym has it's times on its website rather messed up and has a confusing online payment system, but it's a good gym.

You are taking an awfully non-rigorous approach to this. What does it mean to say your gym is "good"? You probably mean that the gym provides you with the services that you consider necessary in an effective manner. Considering how poorly the public face of Obamacare is doing its job, why do you assume the rest of it will be effective? Why do you assume the portions are not "connected"?

Fine, I'll reword slightly: Doesn't the fact that the government sometimes can't run a website make you question whether they should be running the health care system?

Not really. Given that running a website only became part of the health system 3 years ago, I don't see how it can be critical. But you tell me why incompetence in one area implies incompetence in the other; you are making the claim. I haven't done a single thing online regarding the NHS in my life.

So many successful entities can't run a proper website. even companies whose only business is to run websites sometimes fuck them up. FFS google fucks shit up all the time and they are the goliath of computing. I am not excusing their incompetence. Frankly, it's embarrassing and they should be ashamed. But I still say that the long term merits of the program isn't at all dependent on this initial fuck up._________________

wswartzendruber wrote:

Well, every group has its nutjobs, and the Second Amendment crowd is no exception.

Fine, I'll reword slightly: Doesn't the fact that the government sometimes can't run a website make you question whether they should be running the health care system?

Not really. Given that running a website only became part of the health system 3 years ago, I don't see how it can be critical. But you tell me why incompetence in one area implies incompetence in the other; you are making the claim. I haven't done a single thing online regarding the NHS in my life.

Reasons why incompetence in one area implies incompetence in "the other":
(1) Incompetence is a personal, or organizational, trait. A competent person, or organization, will find a way to succeed, by finding the necessary resources and expertise. If an organization or person takes on a known solvable task, and fails to execute it, the best conclusion is that person/organization is not competent. Thus is it likely that they will fail to perform other tasks.
(2) Under Obamacare, the US government is not "running" the health system. Obamacare is really a bunch of regulations that require existing, or new, private health insurance companies to act in certain ways (for example, they can't refuse patients for pre-existing conditions). One of the few parts of the system that they are "running" is the health care exchanges in states that choose not to set up their own. Thus, when you ask what the government is "doing" in terms of Obamacare, a large part of the answer is that they are setting up a system in which the various commercial insurance options can be compared. In other words, the portion of Obamacare in which they have demonstrated incompetency is representative of a large part of what Obamacare is about.

Quote:

So many successful entities can't run a proper website. even companies whose only business is to run websites sometimes fuck them up. FFS google fucks shit up all the time and they are the goliath of computing. I am not excusing their incompetence.

Please provide an example of a private company in the last 10 years screwing up a website as bad as this. Bonus points if that company is google.

But you tell me why incompetence in one area implies incompetence in the other

To me this is somewhat akin to asking why being unable to lift 10kg of iron implies you are unable to lift 10kg of feathers. Incompetence doesn't imply incompetence, it is incompetence. If you have demonstrated incompetence, then you are incompetent. Full stop._________________Your argument is invalid.

But you tell me why incompetence in one area implies incompetence in the other

To me this is somewhat akin to asking why being unable to lift 10kg of iron implies you are unable to lift 10kg of feathers. Incompetence doesn't imply incompetence, it is incompetence. If you have demonstrated incompetence, then you are incompetent. Full stop.

SO the government has to be competent in every aspect? How does one become magically competent in something not yet tried? I suppose the entire human race is, by extension, incompetent. I'm ready for my logical fallacy punishment now, nurse.

But you tell me why incompetence in one area implies incompetence in the other

To me this is somewhat akin to asking why being unable to lift 10kg of iron implies you are unable to lift 10kg of feathers. Incompetence doesn't imply incompetence, it is incompetence. If you have demonstrated incompetence, then you are incompetent. Full stop.

Saying someone is incompetent in maths but competent as an artist is totally reasonable. No organization is competent in everything. As I pointed out earlier, all these things (insurance companies and public health systems) existed and ran well before a website was required for them. So, it's still a mystery how fucking up a website has anything to do with the long term merits of a program. This is EXACTLY what republicans want you to focus on. Forget what's in Obamacare, focus on the website fuck up.

richk449 wrote:

Incompetence is a personal, or organizational, trait. A competent person, or organization, will find a way to succeed, by finding the necessary resources and expertise. If an organization or person takes on a known solvable task, and fails to execute it, the best conclusion is that person/organization is not competent. Thus is it likely that they will fail to perform other tasks.

The website of obamacare is more than a website. It manages a lot of information and it has to do it securely (HA!). Technical companies often screw up some of their central products. Windows for 20 years sold had an OS plagued with viruses, experian just lost a whole bunch of data, apple released a phone whose map app was a total turd. Ubuntu one sucks ass. Google can't manage to get google play to work on mac or linux. GM has made shitty cars for 30 years. In each case, those companies were messing up their main popular products.

As for an example of a website as bad as obamacare, I visit shitty websites daily. Are they as bad? That's a judgement call. Fucking ryanair's website is a massive turd. It's ugly as sin and low on information (that, however, is probably by design). Travelocity had a super annoying flaw that if you use the back button your entire form was erased and you had to re-search your flight details. Shit like that is ubiquitous.

However, I repeat that I can't see how a task that 5 years ago didn't exist for such an organization now makes one incompetent if not done correctly.

They fucked up royally. They had far more interest than anticipated. The tasks and information on the site aren't clear. But does that make the affordable care act bad? Sorry, but I just don't see the connection._________________

wswartzendruber wrote:

Well, every group has its nutjobs, and the Second Amendment crowd is no exception.

But you tell me why incompetence in one area implies incompetence in the other

To me this is somewhat akin to asking why being unable to lift 10kg of iron implies you are unable to lift 10kg of feathers. Incompetence doesn't imply incompetence, it is incompetence. If you have demonstrated incompetence, then you are incompetent. Full stop.

SO the government has to be competent in every aspect? How does one become magically competent in something not yet tried? I suppose the entire human race is, by extension, incompetent. I'm ready for my logical fallacy punishment now, nurse.

You know you have a point... I think I'll hand my 1 year old daughter a scalpel and have a go at brain surgery, hell she can practice on me. Ya gotta start somewhere!

Fine, I'll reword slightly: Doesn't the fact that the government sometimes can't run a website make you question whether they should be running the health care system?

I really don't see how the government sometimes managing to run websites without falling on their face mitigates the argument even in the slightest.

Given that the website was contracted out, it would speak more to a failure in capitalism. In fact, just about every non-routine IT problem a western government has is contracted out, hence the routine cost and deadline overruns. And c'mon, the contract had 3 whole years to get it done. That's insane._________________

juniper wrote:

you experience political reality dilation when travelling at american political speeds. it's in einstein's formulas. it's not their fault.